×
Before quantum computing arrives, this startup wants enterprises already running on it | TechCrunch

Before quantum computing arrives, this startup wants enterprises already running on it | TechCrunch

Eighteen months after selling his startup to chipmaker AMD for $665 million, Finnish entrepreneur Peter Sarlin has left his role as CEO of the unit now known as AMD Silo AI. He is now chairman at two new ventures: physical AI lab NestAI, and QuTwo, an AI startup aimed at helping companies prepare for the era of quantum computing

Currently fully funded by Sarlin’s family office, PostScriptum, QuTwo describes itself as “an AI lab for the quantum era.” Rather than waiting for quantum computing to mature, however, it is already working with enterprise customers — including European fashion retailer Zalando, with which it is developing what the two companies call “lifestyle agents,” AI tools designed to go beyond product search and proactively suggest products and experiences.

QuTwo is built on the premise that AI is hitting an efficiency wall that quantum computing may eventually help solve. But the company is not betting on when that will happen, Sarlin told TechCrunch. Instead, the startup is building QuTwo OS as an orchestration layer that allows companies to shift from classical to quantum computing — making use of hybrid computing along the way.

Sarlin invested in Finnish quantum companies IQM and QMill through PostScriptum, and is one of a growing number of investors who believe it will eventually outperform classical computers in a wide range of industry applications while easing AI’s energy demands. But he also thinks that initial use cases will require mixed hardware environments, and that enterprises would rather focus on their business problems while QuTwo OS takes care of the routing.

In that respect, the potential advantage of the middle ground known as “quantum-inspired” computing is that it is already viable today, because it uses classical hardware while simulating quantum behavior, working around the hurdles that still hinder quantum hardware. Meanwhile, QuTwo OS is designed to be flexible, supporting quantum or non-quantum algorithms and chips alike.

QuTwo’s team brings experience on both sides of the quantum-AI divide. On the quantum side, there’s IQM cofounder Kuan Yen Tan and board member Antti Vasara, also chair at SemiQon, a Finnish semiconductor startup focused on quantum chips. The enterprise side is equally represented, by Sarlin himself and Kaj-Mikael Björk, one of his former cofounders at Silo AI. Pekka Lundmark, the former CEO of Finnish telecom giant Nokia, also joined QuTwo’s board.

Across both areas, the team counts over 30 quantum and AI scientists, and Sarlin is clear where the company stands. “We’re building for the quantum world, but QuTwo is an AI company,” he said, meaning that QuTwo is “pushing AI workloads from classical to quantum.”

Techcrunch event

San Francisco, CA
|
October 13-15, 2026

This also means that its customer base could be quite broad. Beyond Zalando, QuTwo also launched a joint quantum AI research initiative with OP Pohjola, a major Finnish financial services provider.

From the outset, QuTwo has been commercially minded and already has “large design partnerships which are in the tens of millions,” Sarlin said. Design partnerships — in which a vendor co-develops its product alongside enterprise customers — are a way for QuTwo to learn what those customers expect as it builds its product. They are also a bet from enterprises looking to establish early footing when and if quantum computing does arrive.

Source link
#quantum #computing #arrives #startup #enterprises #running #TechCrunch


Did you recently see a video of kids from the 1990s predicting how computers would be used in the future? It’s fake. The video was created using Flux 3 and if you didn’t inspect it too closely, it looks pretty authentic as an artifact from 30 years ago. But it serves as a great reminder that we really can’t trust our own eyes here in 2026.

Justine Moore, a partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, tweeted the video last week, writing that Black Forest Labs’ Flux 3 is “exceptional at generating historical footage.” The venture capital firm announced it was investing in Black Forest Labs in 2024.

Moore noted that the last girl in the video was her favorite, perhaps because it has some awkward silences that make it appear much more realistic.

The video has an aesthetic quality that feels like 1990s video and the outfits are decade appropriate. The answers given by the AI kids are also very believable. “They’ll probably do our homework,” one AI-generated kid says. Another responds, “Maybe they’ll make movies for us,” an obvious nod to the agenda of tech boosters who think AI tools will soon replace Hollywood films.

“I think we’ll just tell them what to do,” another fake AI kid says in the video. That one feels like a wink to folks who are worried about AI going rogue. OpenAI and Anthropic have had some experience with that lately.

These kinds of predictions were extremely common in the 20th century. Kids frequently predicted that computers (or robots) would do their homework for them. A few years back I looked at some predictions for robots in the future from kids in the 1980s and they sounded identical.

“I want my robot to do things for my mom and me. I want my robot to do my homework,” one Kentucky first grader in 1988 wrote.

Kids were predicting the same kind of stuff as far back as the 1950s. So it’s clear where the creators of this video were pulling this idea from. But the video presents a unique challenge for the future of humanity.

What happens when people make realistic AI videos that change how we understand history? Obviously this one is fairly innocuous, even if the goal is to normalize AI use through subtle propaganda. But what about people who create new versions of events in history and treat them like newly uncovered video? Perhaps we get an AI-generated wide angle view of the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Or maybe we get a new angle on the assassination of John F. Kennedy that reveals the president was actually killed by Tiny Tim?

This is just the world we live in now. And we have to navigate it with proper skepticism. Unfortunately, people can be so skeptical that they discount very real photos and videos. Have you heard that some pro baseball players have started to insist Babe Ruth didn’t actually exist? The evidence for this claim is that apparently there isn’t enough video footage of the late baseball great. But it’s a ridiculous idea for so many reasons, not least of which is that we actually have a fair amount of motion picture film showing Babe Ruth in action.

President Donald Trump benefits from the same kind of skepticism in a perverse way. It’s known as the liar’s dividend, where someone can claim that real footage is fake because there’s enough doubt based on the available technology to create a plausible fake video.

I’m not saying that Tiny Tim actually killed Kennedy. I’m just saying that if he really did and there was video proving it, nobody would believe it’s real. And if someone made a fake AI video showing Tiny Tim killing Kennedy there would be people who absolutely think it’s real.

In short, we’re just cooked as a species at this point.

#A16Z #Brags #Great #Poisoning #Internet #Fake #Tech #Historya16z,AI,Artificial intelligence">A16Z Brags That Its AI Is Great for Poisoning the Internet With Fake Tech History
                Did you recently see a video of kids from the 1990s predicting how computers would be used in the future? It’s fake. The video was created using Flux 3 and if you didn’t inspect it too closely, it looks pretty authentic as an artifact from 30 years ago. But it serves as a great reminder that we really can’t trust our own eyes here in 2026. Justine Moore, a partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, tweeted the video last week, writing that Black Forest Labs’ Flux 3 is “exceptional at generating historical footage.” The venture capital firm announced it was investing in Black Forest Labs in 2024. Moore noted that the last girl in the video was her favorite, perhaps because it has some awkward silences that make it appear much more realistic.  Turns out that Flux 3 is exceptional at generating historical footage… like elementary school students in the ’90s predicting how we’ll use computers.  (the last girl is my favorite!) pic.twitter.com/oH6qJy8AQU — Justine Moore (@venturetwins) July 28, 2026  The video has an aesthetic quality that feels like 1990s video and the outfits are decade appropriate. The answers given by the AI kids are also very believable. “They’ll probably do our homework,” one AI-generated kid says. Another responds, “Maybe they’ll make movies for us,” an obvious nod to the agenda of tech boosters who think AI tools will soon replace Hollywood films.

 “I think we’ll just tell them what to do,” another fake AI kid says in the video. That one feels like a wink to folks who are worried about AI going rogue. OpenAI and Anthropic have had some experience with that lately. These kinds of predictions were extremely common in the 20th century. Kids frequently predicted that computers (or robots) would do their homework for them. A few years back I looked at some predictions for robots in the future from kids in the 1980s and they sounded identical.

 “I want my robot to do things for my mom and me. I want my robot to do my homework,” one Kentucky first grader in 1988 wrote. Kids were predicting the same kind of stuff as far back as the 1950s. So it’s clear where the creators of this video were pulling this idea from. But the video presents a unique challenge for the future of humanity. What happens when people make realistic AI videos that change how we understand history? Obviously this one is fairly innocuous, even if the goal is to normalize AI use through subtle propaganda. But what about people who create new versions of events in history and treat them like newly uncovered video? Perhaps we get an AI-generated wide angle view of the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Or maybe we get a new angle on the assassination of John F. Kennedy that reveals the president was actually killed by Tiny Tim?

 This is just the world we live in now. And we have to navigate it with proper skepticism. Unfortunately, people can be so skeptical that they discount very real photos and videos. Have you heard that some pro baseball players have started to insist Babe Ruth didn’t actually exist? The evidence for this claim is that apparently there isn’t enough video footage of the late baseball great. But it’s a ridiculous idea for so many reasons, not least of which is that we actually have a fair amount of motion picture film showing Babe Ruth in action.   President Donald Trump benefits from the same kind of skepticism in a perverse way. It’s known as the liar’s dividend, where someone can claim that real footage is fake because there’s enough doubt based on the available technology to create a plausible fake video. I’m not saying that Tiny Tim actually killed Kennedy. I’m just saying that if he really did and there was video proving it, nobody would believe it’s real. And if someone made a fake AI video showing Tiny Tim killing Kennedy there would be people who absolutely think it’s real. In short, we’re just cooked as a species at this point.      #A16Z #Brags #Great #Poisoning #Internet #Fake #Tech #Historya16z,AI,Artificial intelligence

tweeted the video last week, writing that Black Forest Labs’ Flux 3 is “exceptional at generating historical footage.” The venture capital firm announced it was investing in Black Forest Labs in 2024.

Moore noted that the last girl in the video was her favorite, perhaps because it has some awkward silences that make it appear much more realistic.

The video has an aesthetic quality that feels like 1990s video and the outfits are decade appropriate. The answers given by the AI kids are also very believable. “They’ll probably do our homework,” one AI-generated kid says. Another responds, “Maybe they’ll make movies for us,” an obvious nod to the agenda of tech boosters who think AI tools will soon replace Hollywood films.

“I think we’ll just tell them what to do,” another fake AI kid says in the video. That one feels like a wink to folks who are worried about AI going rogue. OpenAI and Anthropic have had some experience with that lately.

These kinds of predictions were extremely common in the 20th century. Kids frequently predicted that computers (or robots) would do their homework for them. A few years back I looked at some predictions for robots in the future from kids in the 1980s and they sounded identical.

“I want my robot to do things for my mom and me. I want my robot to do my homework,” one Kentucky first grader in 1988 wrote.

Kids were predicting the same kind of stuff as far back as the 1950s. So it’s clear where the creators of this video were pulling this idea from. But the video presents a unique challenge for the future of humanity.

What happens when people make realistic AI videos that change how we understand history? Obviously this one is fairly innocuous, even if the goal is to normalize AI use through subtle propaganda. But what about people who create new versions of events in history and treat them like newly uncovered video? Perhaps we get an AI-generated wide angle view of the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Or maybe we get a new angle on the assassination of John F. Kennedy that reveals the president was actually killed by Tiny Tim?

This is just the world we live in now. And we have to navigate it with proper skepticism. Unfortunately, people can be so skeptical that they discount very real photos and videos. Have you heard that some pro baseball players have started to insist Babe Ruth didn’t actually exist? The evidence for this claim is that apparently there isn’t enough video footage of the late baseball great. But it’s a ridiculous idea for so many reasons, not least of which is that we actually have a fair amount of motion picture film showing Babe Ruth in action.

President Donald Trump benefits from the same kind of skepticism in a perverse way. It’s known as the liar’s dividend, where someone can claim that real footage is fake because there’s enough doubt based on the available technology to create a plausible fake video.

I’m not saying that Tiny Tim actually killed Kennedy. I’m just saying that if he really did and there was video proving it, nobody would believe it’s real. And if someone made a fake AI video showing Tiny Tim killing Kennedy there would be people who absolutely think it’s real.

In short, we’re just cooked as a species at this point.

#A16Z #Brags #Great #Poisoning #Internet #Fake #Tech #Historya16z,AI,Artificial intelligence">A16Z Brags That Its AI Is Great for Poisoning the Internet With Fake Tech HistoryA16Z Brags That Its AI Is Great for Poisoning the Internet With Fake Tech History
                Did you recently see a video of kids from the 1990s predicting how computers would be used in the future? It’s fake. The video was created using Flux 3 and if you didn’t inspect it too closely, it looks pretty authentic as an artifact from 30 years ago. But it serves as a great reminder that we really can’t trust our own eyes here in 2026. Justine Moore, a partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, tweeted the video last week, writing that Black Forest Labs’ Flux 3 is “exceptional at generating historical footage.” The venture capital firm announced it was investing in Black Forest Labs in 2024. Moore noted that the last girl in the video was her favorite, perhaps because it has some awkward silences that make it appear much more realistic.  Turns out that Flux 3 is exceptional at generating historical footage… like elementary school students in the ’90s predicting how we’ll use computers.  (the last girl is my favorite!) pic.twitter.com/oH6qJy8AQU — Justine Moore (@venturetwins) July 28, 2026  The video has an aesthetic quality that feels like 1990s video and the outfits are decade appropriate. The answers given by the AI kids are also very believable. “They’ll probably do our homework,” one AI-generated kid says. Another responds, “Maybe they’ll make movies for us,” an obvious nod to the agenda of tech boosters who think AI tools will soon replace Hollywood films.

 “I think we’ll just tell them what to do,” another fake AI kid says in the video. That one feels like a wink to folks who are worried about AI going rogue. OpenAI and Anthropic have had some experience with that lately. These kinds of predictions were extremely common in the 20th century. Kids frequently predicted that computers (or robots) would do their homework for them. A few years back I looked at some predictions for robots in the future from kids in the 1980s and they sounded identical.

 “I want my robot to do things for my mom and me. I want my robot to do my homework,” one Kentucky first grader in 1988 wrote. Kids were predicting the same kind of stuff as far back as the 1950s. So it’s clear where the creators of this video were pulling this idea from. But the video presents a unique challenge for the future of humanity. What happens when people make realistic AI videos that change how we understand history? Obviously this one is fairly innocuous, even if the goal is to normalize AI use through subtle propaganda. But what about people who create new versions of events in history and treat them like newly uncovered video? Perhaps we get an AI-generated wide angle view of the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Or maybe we get a new angle on the assassination of John F. Kennedy that reveals the president was actually killed by Tiny Tim?

 This is just the world we live in now. And we have to navigate it with proper skepticism. Unfortunately, people can be so skeptical that they discount very real photos and videos. Have you heard that some pro baseball players have started to insist Babe Ruth didn’t actually exist? The evidence for this claim is that apparently there isn’t enough video footage of the late baseball great. But it’s a ridiculous idea for so many reasons, not least of which is that we actually have a fair amount of motion picture film showing Babe Ruth in action.   President Donald Trump benefits from the same kind of skepticism in a perverse way. It’s known as the liar’s dividend, where someone can claim that real footage is fake because there’s enough doubt based on the available technology to create a plausible fake video. I’m not saying that Tiny Tim actually killed Kennedy. I’m just saying that if he really did and there was video proving it, nobody would believe it’s real. And if someone made a fake AI video showing Tiny Tim killing Kennedy there would be people who absolutely think it’s real. In short, we’re just cooked as a species at this point.      #A16Z #Brags #Great #Poisoning #Internet #Fake #Tech #Historya16z,AI,Artificial intelligence

Did you recently see a video of kids from the 1990s predicting how computers would be used in the future? It’s fake. The video was created using Flux 3 and if you didn’t inspect it too closely, it looks pretty authentic as an artifact from 30 years ago. But it serves as a great reminder that we really can’t trust our own eyes here in 2026.

Justine Moore, a partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, tweeted the video last week, writing that Black Forest Labs’ Flux 3 is “exceptional at generating historical footage.” The venture capital firm announced it was investing in Black Forest Labs in 2024.

Moore noted that the last girl in the video was her favorite, perhaps because it has some awkward silences that make it appear much more realistic.

The video has an aesthetic quality that feels like 1990s video and the outfits are decade appropriate. The answers given by the AI kids are also very believable. “They’ll probably do our homework,” one AI-generated kid says. Another responds, “Maybe they’ll make movies for us,” an obvious nod to the agenda of tech boosters who think AI tools will soon replace Hollywood films.

“I think we’ll just tell them what to do,” another fake AI kid says in the video. That one feels like a wink to folks who are worried about AI going rogue. OpenAI and Anthropic have had some experience with that lately.

These kinds of predictions were extremely common in the 20th century. Kids frequently predicted that computers (or robots) would do their homework for them. A few years back I looked at some predictions for robots in the future from kids in the 1980s and they sounded identical.

“I want my robot to do things for my mom and me. I want my robot to do my homework,” one Kentucky first grader in 1988 wrote.

Kids were predicting the same kind of stuff as far back as the 1950s. So it’s clear where the creators of this video were pulling this idea from. But the video presents a unique challenge for the future of humanity.

What happens when people make realistic AI videos that change how we understand history? Obviously this one is fairly innocuous, even if the goal is to normalize AI use through subtle propaganda. But what about people who create new versions of events in history and treat them like newly uncovered video? Perhaps we get an AI-generated wide angle view of the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Or maybe we get a new angle on the assassination of John F. Kennedy that reveals the president was actually killed by Tiny Tim?

This is just the world we live in now. And we have to navigate it with proper skepticism. Unfortunately, people can be so skeptical that they discount very real photos and videos. Have you heard that some pro baseball players have started to insist Babe Ruth didn’t actually exist? The evidence for this claim is that apparently there isn’t enough video footage of the late baseball great. But it’s a ridiculous idea for so many reasons, not least of which is that we actually have a fair amount of motion picture film showing Babe Ruth in action.

President Donald Trump benefits from the same kind of skepticism in a perverse way. It’s known as the liar’s dividend, where someone can claim that real footage is fake because there’s enough doubt based on the available technology to create a plausible fake video.

I’m not saying that Tiny Tim actually killed Kennedy. I’m just saying that if he really did and there was video proving it, nobody would believe it’s real. And if someone made a fake AI video showing Tiny Tim killing Kennedy there would be people who absolutely think it’s real.

In short, we’re just cooked as a species at this point.

#A16Z #Brags #Great #Poisoning #Internet #Fake #Tech #Historya16z,AI,Artificial intelligence

A SpaceX rocket that has been drifting in space for a year and a half is set to crash into the moon on Wednesday, stirring up a debris cloud that could be visible from Earth. The impact raises questions on the future of lunar exploration, including how to protect any future moon bases from space junk.

The rocket set for moon impact is the upper stage of a Falcon 9 that transported a pair of lunar landers. While the landers successfully reached the surface, the rocket was left adrift since it did not have enough fuel to return to Earth or enter a stable orbit.

Weighing 4 metric tons, the rocket is expected to strike the lunar surface at a speed of approximately 5,400 mph—about seven times the speed of sound. Without an atmosphere to slow the projectile down, the impact will cause an explosion equivalent to 3 metric tons of TNT, leaving a crater that’s projected to be up to 27 meters in diameter and 5 meters deep.

The upper stage is expected to hit the surface around 6:34 am UTC on Wednesday, likely making impact near Einstein Crater on the western edge of the moon’s near side. The Americas will have the best view of this impact. While it won’t be visible to the naked eye, viewers should be able to spot the debris plume through a good telescope for a few minutes.

A lunar crash landing visible from Earth will be a spectacle, one that raises concerns about the future of the moon. Multiple countries are planning uncrewed lunar missions, which could clutter the area around the moon. This SpaceX rocket won’t be the first to accidentally crash into the moon. In March 2022, a Chinese Long March 3C rocket also struck the lunar surface and left a crater that’s 29 meters wide.

China and the US are also pushing to build bases on the surface in the coming decades.

Bill Gray, the creator of the Project Pluto initiative to develop software and tools to track the orbits of asteroids, comets, and artificial satellites, was the first to calculate the trajectory of the impending Falcon 9 crash. He was also part of a team that worked on a preprint study released last month detailing the collision.

The crash landing is ”an opportunity to test pipelines for measuring flash properties to locate impact events seismically, and to better understand the multi-modal hazards posed to future lunar infrastructure and astronauts from space debris impacting the Moon,” the study states.

Although building a moon research center capable of supporting a sustained human presence will take at least a decade, NASA’s missions to construct the first facilities are expected to launch in the coming years as part of the Artemis program.

“These sorts of things are going to happen more and more often. And as we have more astronauts on the lunar surface, more lunar infrastructure habitats, for example, we need to understand how much of a risk these impact events actually pose,” Benjamin Fernando, a researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and coauthor of the preprint study, tells ABC News.

The risk posed by space debris is part of a growing list of hazards that cast doubt on the safety of any long-term project on the moon. In addition to the potential for space junk to wreak havoc on the lunar surface, natural events such as meteorite strikes also threaten any future activities. But with any potential lunar bases still a decade or more away, there’s ample time for researchers to look at the hazards and plan for them.

“This is an ideal way of studying both the direct risks, the risk of being hit by debris or being blinded by a flash of light, but also the indirect risk, the risk of being hit by a cloud of ejected material and having that disrupt or interfere with spacecraft functions in lunar orbit as well,” Fernando says.

#SpaceX #Falcon #Lunar #Crash #Warning #Moon #Basesspace,spacecraft,moon,spacex">The SpaceX Falcon Lunar Crash Is a Warning for Moon BasesA SpaceX rocket that has been drifting in space for a year and a half is set to crash into the moon on Wednesday, stirring up a debris cloud that could be visible from Earth. The impact raises questions on the future of lunar exploration, including how to protect any future moon bases from space junk.The rocket set for moon impact is the upper stage of a Falcon 9 that transported a pair of lunar landers. While the landers successfully reached the surface, the rocket was left adrift since it did not have enough fuel to return to Earth or enter a stable orbit.Weighing 4 metric tons, the rocket is expected to strike the lunar surface at a speed of approximately 5,400 mph—about seven times the speed of sound. Without an atmosphere to slow the projectile down, the impact will cause an explosion equivalent to 3 metric tons of TNT, leaving a crater that’s projected to be up to 27 meters in diameter and 5 meters deep.The upper stage is expected to hit the surface around 6:34 am UTC on Wednesday, likely making impact near Einstein Crater on the western edge of the moon’s near side. The Americas will have the best view of this impact. While it won’t be visible to the naked eye, viewers should be able to spot the debris plume through a good telescope for a few minutes.A lunar crash landing visible from Earth will be a spectacle, one that raises concerns about the future of the moon. Multiple countries are planning uncrewed lunar missions, which could clutter the area around the moon. This SpaceX rocket won’t be the first to accidentally crash into the moon. In March 2022, a Chinese Long March 3C rocket also struck the lunar surface and left a crater that’s 29 meters wide.China and the US are also pushing to build bases on the surface in the coming decades.Bill Gray, the creator of the Project Pluto initiative to develop software and tools to track the orbits of asteroids, comets, and artificial satellites, was the first to calculate the trajectory of the impending Falcon 9 crash. He was also part of a team that worked on a preprint study released last month detailing the collision.The crash landing is ”an opportunity to test pipelines for measuring flash properties to locate impact events seismically, and to better understand the multi-modal hazards posed to future lunar infrastructure and astronauts from space debris impacting the Moon,” the study states.Although building a moon research center capable of supporting a sustained human presence will take at least a decade, NASA’s missions to construct the first facilities are expected to launch in the coming years as part of the Artemis program.“These sorts of things are going to happen more and more often. And as we have more astronauts on the lunar surface, more lunar infrastructure habitats, for example, we need to understand how much of a risk these impact events actually pose,” Benjamin Fernando, a researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and coauthor of the preprint study, tells ABC News.The risk posed by space debris is part of a growing list of hazards that cast doubt on the safety of any long-term project on the moon. In addition to the potential for space junk to wreak havoc on the lunar surface, natural events such as meteorite strikes also threaten any future activities. But with any potential lunar bases still a decade or more away, there’s ample time for researchers to look at the hazards and plan for them.“This is an ideal way of studying both the direct risks, the risk of being hit by debris or being blinded by a flash of light, but also the indirect risk, the risk of being hit by a cloud of ejected material and having that disrupt or interfere with spacecraft functions in lunar orbit as well,” Fernando says.#SpaceX #Falcon #Lunar #Crash #Warning #Moon #Basesspace,spacecraft,moon,spacex

crash into the moon on Wednesday, stirring up a debris cloud that could be visible from Earth. The impact raises questions on the future of lunar exploration, including how to protect any future moon bases from space junk.

The rocket set for moon impact is the upper stage of a Falcon 9 that transported a pair of lunar landers. While the landers successfully reached the surface, the rocket was left adrift since it did not have enough fuel to return to Earth or enter a stable orbit.

Weighing 4 metric tons, the rocket is expected to strike the lunar surface at a speed of approximately 5,400 mph—about seven times the speed of sound. Without an atmosphere to slow the projectile down, the impact will cause an explosion equivalent to 3 metric tons of TNT, leaving a crater that’s projected to be up to 27 meters in diameter and 5 meters deep.

The upper stage is expected to hit the surface around 6:34 am UTC on Wednesday, likely making impact near Einstein Crater on the western edge of the moon’s near side. The Americas will have the best view of this impact. While it won’t be visible to the naked eye, viewers should be able to spot the debris plume through a good telescope for a few minutes.

A lunar crash landing visible from Earth will be a spectacle, one that raises concerns about the future of the moon. Multiple countries are planning uncrewed lunar missions, which could clutter the area around the moon. This SpaceX rocket won’t be the first to accidentally crash into the moon. In March 2022, a Chinese Long March 3C rocket also struck the lunar surface and left a crater that’s 29 meters wide.

China and the US are also pushing to build bases on the surface in the coming decades.

Bill Gray, the creator of the Project Pluto initiative to develop software and tools to track the orbits of asteroids, comets, and artificial satellites, was the first to calculate the trajectory of the impending Falcon 9 crash. He was also part of a team that worked on a preprint study released last month detailing the collision.

The crash landing is ”an opportunity to test pipelines for measuring flash properties to locate impact events seismically, and to better understand the multi-modal hazards posed to future lunar infrastructure and astronauts from space debris impacting the Moon,” the study states.

Although building a moon research center capable of supporting a sustained human presence will take at least a decade, NASA’s missions to construct the first facilities are expected to launch in the coming years as part of the Artemis program.

“These sorts of things are going to happen more and more often. And as we have more astronauts on the lunar surface, more lunar infrastructure habitats, for example, we need to understand how much of a risk these impact events actually pose,” Benjamin Fernando, a researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and coauthor of the preprint study, tells ABC News.

The risk posed by space debris is part of a growing list of hazards that cast doubt on the safety of any long-term project on the moon. In addition to the potential for space junk to wreak havoc on the lunar surface, natural events such as meteorite strikes also threaten any future activities. But with any potential lunar bases still a decade or more away, there’s ample time for researchers to look at the hazards and plan for them.

“This is an ideal way of studying both the direct risks, the risk of being hit by debris or being blinded by a flash of light, but also the indirect risk, the risk of being hit by a cloud of ejected material and having that disrupt or interfere with spacecraft functions in lunar orbit as well,” Fernando says.

#SpaceX #Falcon #Lunar #Crash #Warning #Moon #Basesspace,spacecraft,moon,spacex">The SpaceX Falcon Lunar Crash Is a Warning for Moon Bases

A SpaceX rocket that has been drifting in space for a year and a half is set to crash into the moon on Wednesday, stirring up a debris cloud that could be visible from Earth. The impact raises questions on the future of lunar exploration, including how to protect any future moon bases from space junk.

The rocket set for moon impact is the upper stage of a Falcon 9 that transported a pair of lunar landers. While the landers successfully reached the surface, the rocket was left adrift since it did not have enough fuel to return to Earth or enter a stable orbit.

Weighing 4 metric tons, the rocket is expected to strike the lunar surface at a speed of approximately 5,400 mph—about seven times the speed of sound. Without an atmosphere to slow the projectile down, the impact will cause an explosion equivalent to 3 metric tons of TNT, leaving a crater that’s projected to be up to 27 meters in diameter and 5 meters deep.

The upper stage is expected to hit the surface around 6:34 am UTC on Wednesday, likely making impact near Einstein Crater on the western edge of the moon’s near side. The Americas will have the best view of this impact. While it won’t be visible to the naked eye, viewers should be able to spot the debris plume through a good telescope for a few minutes.

A lunar crash landing visible from Earth will be a spectacle, one that raises concerns about the future of the moon. Multiple countries are planning uncrewed lunar missions, which could clutter the area around the moon. This SpaceX rocket won’t be the first to accidentally crash into the moon. In March 2022, a Chinese Long March 3C rocket also struck the lunar surface and left a crater that’s 29 meters wide.

China and the US are also pushing to build bases on the surface in the coming decades.

Bill Gray, the creator of the Project Pluto initiative to develop software and tools to track the orbits of asteroids, comets, and artificial satellites, was the first to calculate the trajectory of the impending Falcon 9 crash. He was also part of a team that worked on a preprint study released last month detailing the collision.

The crash landing is ”an opportunity to test pipelines for measuring flash properties to locate impact events seismically, and to better understand the multi-modal hazards posed to future lunar infrastructure and astronauts from space debris impacting the Moon,” the study states.

Although building a moon research center capable of supporting a sustained human presence will take at least a decade, NASA’s missions to construct the first facilities are expected to launch in the coming years as part of the Artemis program.

“These sorts of things are going to happen more and more often. And as we have more astronauts on the lunar surface, more lunar infrastructure habitats, for example, we need to understand how much of a risk these impact events actually pose,” Benjamin Fernando, a researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and coauthor of the preprint study, tells ABC News.

The risk posed by space debris is part of a growing list of hazards that cast doubt on the safety of any long-term project on the moon. In addition to the potential for space junk to wreak havoc on the lunar surface, natural events such as meteorite strikes also threaten any future activities. But with any potential lunar bases still a decade or more away, there’s ample time for researchers to look at the hazards and plan for them.

“This is an ideal way of studying both the direct risks, the risk of being hit by debris or being blinded by a flash of light, but also the indirect risk, the risk of being hit by a cloud of ejected material and having that disrupt or interfere with spacecraft functions in lunar orbit as well,” Fernando says.

#SpaceX #Falcon #Lunar #Crash #Warning #Moon #Basesspace,spacecraft,moon,spacex

Post Comment